donkeyd

> Aye, aye.

Honestly, at about €1 per MP3 (which is on the low end, looking at Beatport), I couldn't afford listening to the amount of different music I do now.

> fed by a recommendation algorithm

As opposed to being fed by the maintainer of some web site?

> I may have a higher tolerance for my tastes not being pandered to

> Seems to me that you are doing precisely that.

> What is the price point that makes piracy moral, then?

To me, your entire comment feels incredibly snobby. It's like you see people who use streaming services as lesser people, just because they use a different way to listen to music. It also feels like that opinion is based on an incredibly limited assumption of how people use streaming services.

I can see a future where we can't do that anymore either, because climate change will displace many people and weather will also become a topic that might hurt some people's feelings.

While typing this, I realized we're there already. During summer, when talking about the temperature, people already feel the need to add their opinion about climate change to the discussion, which then becomes political.

A couple of guys were escorted out of a conference and then fired, for making jokes about 'forking' repo's and big 'dongles' [0]. It's a perfect example of the loud minority ruining lives over what most people I know (including women) will consider a harmless joke.

0: https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale...

> Isn't it upon those wanting to change...

No. It isn't anymore. Because the loud minority now has the means to globally and publicly destroy you if you say something they dislike. You might lose your job or even your personal safety because of a statement that can be interpreted in some way that someone doesn't like.

> Those words can still do real harm to real people

Pretty much anything you can say that has any form of content can do harm to someone. If we want to never ever accidentally hurt someone's feelings, we need to stop talking about:

- Having kids. It's quite painful to those who can't.

- Parents. It's painful to those who don't have any, or have abusive ones.

- War. It's painful to veterans or people who fled war.

- Anything medical. It might hurt someone who's dealing with a medical issue in one way or another.

- Pets. It might be a sensitive subject to someone who just lost a pet.

- Stop asking people how they're doing. It's a sensitive subject to people dealing with burn-out or depression.

Where do we draw the line?

I've been personally affected, many times, by multiple things in my examples above, so please don't say I'm exaggerating with those examples. However, I really don't want to live in a world where we need to watch every word because it might make someone feel bad.

If anything, this type of thinking might even affect people negatively, because it pushes the idea that feelings should be repressed, in stead of dealt with.

So I need to purchase the MP3's in order to do this? Then I need to spend time on other web sites for music discovery?

This would work if you almost never venture outside of your existing music catalog. If that's you, it's probably also a better financial decision to just purchase your own music in stead of 'renting' it.

According to my 'Wrapped' I listened to 4600 different songs this year, from 3000 artists. Most of them I discovered because of Spotify. So for me, Spotify is very much worth it and I would not be able to self host anything to give me near the value that Spotify adds. And I can't even contemplate pirating all these songs, since I find that morally wrong because the paid services (for music) are decently affordable and provide good value.

> and I dont know of any systems starting out today using it

I do... In a project I was working on for a major Dutch government organization, they were building stuff in COBOL. This was a project where we were using NLP for automated data extraction. I still find it hilarious that part of it was being built in COBOL.

Interestingly though, the accounts for Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram are still on Twitter, but the one for Mastodon isn't. I wonder why...

As a European, I'm surprised about the silence from Brussels around this. They're always really good at calling things anti-competitive, but this is just about the most anti-competitive thing I've ever seen and I've not heard anything about this yet. Maybe they're just slow, but it's kinda disappointing.

People who say yes without questioning their superiors or clients tend to get promoted.

This is what I assume they mean.

> to write something to a Blockchain I'm going to need to pay a fee to do so >I've not seen any web3 projects tout themselves as free data storage

Well, of course, because the main reason for building blockchains is currently to make big bucks by selling the attached cryptocurrency. Also, storage isn't free, so fee data storage can't exist. That also isn't what I was describing.

There's no need for there to be payments involved in a blockchain, however. What blockchain does is provide a medium to store data that is signed by someone and can be read by others. It also allows this data to be stored in a distributed fashion on the devices of anyone who wants to store it, without there being a possibility that someone changes the data without anyone knowing.

The commenter I responded to wrote: > which was a barcode reader plus online DB. Until the company went bust, and the device magically transformed into a brick.

Hypothetically, if you were to use a blockchain to store the data, in stead of a centralized DB, anyone could run a copy of that blockchain and become a peer in the network. Users who still want to use the product after the company disappears can become a peers in the network to keep it running and prevent the device from becoming obsolete.

There have already been large organizations that experimented with blockchain in somewhat similar scenarios. They all run an instance of the blockchain and any data that has to be tracked between them is written to that blockchain. It's completely private to those companies, but nobody directly owns the data and there are no currency transactions involved in these blockchains.

I understand that there's confusion about this, because blockchain in the public eye means cryptocurrency. But cryptocurrency is just an implementation of the blockchain technology. And that technology works really well without any form of micro transaction involved.

I find it interesting that, for some reason, mentioning Web3 very quickly ended up at libertarianism. My point was that storing essential data on a blockchain means it can be distributed and there's no single point of failure. For some reason people think Blockchain == crypto, however, but Blockchain can be done without crypto.

Something like this can be compared to torrents, where the data is distributed, so as long as someone hosts the data it will be available.

> LE lets this goes on for longer than it needs to

There's an incredibly limited amount of people working in cyber crime. Building a case, getting subpoenas takes a lot of effort. Even if something may be obvious to outsiders, building a case might still take a lot of effort. Those scarcely available people are usually put on the highest priority cases first. What they are, you might never know.

Then, if there's a network behind it you want to take down instead of only the fronts, you need to spend way more time on case building, writing, interacting with other agencies and I can go on.

Source: worked in the field.

This may be the one of the few true benefits of Web3/decentralization. As long as people see value in the network, it will stay online. Even if it's just a few people.

It won't be his downfall. He still owns SpaceX, which is starting to become very influential. He still owns a large part (though less than he used to) of Tesla. If (when) Twitter crashes and burns, he will get sucked further into his dark abyss and I expect he will become the next Thiel / Koch and use his money to fuck the US political system even more than he's already doing.

> Elon jet wasn’t political afaik.

In the current political climate, anything that isn't political but does something one side of the spectrum dislikes, automatically becomes political. Elon has turned quite extremely and vocally to the right. So people on the right will view ElonJet as an attack on the right. Unfortunately, that's just how it goes.

These days you can't even write anything objectively anymore. You'll always end at a conclusion that one side will interpret as being against them and then attack you for it.

Slight tangent, but it's especially visible in people who support stuff they're actually not in favor of, just because the perceived 'other side' dislikes it. I've seen people who live environmentally conscious support farmers in the Netherlands, just because the farmers were protesting the current government. Dutch farmers have a huge impact on the Dutch environment and supporting them is the opposite of being environmentally conscious. Yet, people think that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend and the other way around.

> Humans can't tell that difference, except in the sense of "it's good when my side does it to you, and bad when it's the other way around."

Many humans can though. There's a very big group of people that think every corrupt politician should be investigated. This type of thinking is not equally prevalent amongst all sides of the political spectrum. It is prevalent amongst all extremist forms though, but that probably has to do with the type of person that becomes extremist in the first place.

Yes, they pretty much are. It's trickle up economics in this world. Employees only work for the benefits of investors and executives.

Yup. Working for early stage start-ups is like entering a lottery that sells incredibly expensive tickets. Sure, you might get really rich some day, but there's a much bigger chance you miss out on wages and spend more than 40 hours a week working with no payday ever.

People should really be more aware of this, but as usual, everyone only focuses on the winners.

Yeah, in theory it's a great idea. In practice, it always ends up as a challenge for economies of scale. Just look at Bitcoin, we can all mine it, but it's not worth it unless you scale. In the end, someone will build a data center, just to gather profits from whatever Web3 implementation you think of. Because their energy cost is lower, relatively, it will become too expensive to 'mine' at home.

It's the circle of capitalism.

Currently, about $3B is invested in fusion per year, while about $6000B is spent on oil subsidies. That's just to show how little we spend on fusion. Any decent increase in spending would really help speeding up the process. I think that's something we should all be promoting!

Tell them to make the videos they're missing on Youtube. If there's already 100 people making that exact video, then there's no gap to fill. Anything else can bring in some money (if you play it right).

I personally made some videos showcasing specific products I used in my hobby. I made video's that showed them in a way I wanted to see on Youtube before buying, but couldn't find. I then added some affiliate links in the description. These video's brought in some money that I then spent on other stuff for the hobby.

Don't expect to earn a living wage off Youtube. You have to get very lucky (or be incredibly good, see 'Stuff Made Here') to do that. Earning some money is quite doable though, if you find the right niche.

> Also has there ever been a society where flaws are just accepted without any kind of judgement?

We're moving goal posts here. You asked whether it was socially acceptable to be a flawed person and I responded to that specifically. I never wrote that any and every flaw should be accepted. That's very different from accepting that everyone is flawed in some way or another and actually dealing with those flaws in stead of pretending we aren't.

> we don't feel comfortable openly judging people's flaws

That's hilarious in a period where politics is turning into nothing more than pointing out the flaws of others, whether those flaws exist or not. Attack ads have become more common than ads talking about plans and politics. There are entire TV shows only taking about flaws of others. All while pretending that the people judging others are in some way not flawed at all.

Not North America, but my SaaS start-up grew mostly through networking and just cold and luke warm approaches to potential clients. We got a very extroverted team mate that didn't have any from of restraint in approaching people. This guy also had a goodwill factor surrounding him. He really helped in getting us in with a lot of companies.

It also helped that we had a very clearly defined market so we knew exactly who to approach. We also had no real viable competitors, so if they liked our proposition, we were an easy choice. So when we got in, we would set up an account with them, get them started and let them use the app for free for a month. Most would be convinced after that, some wouldn't.

Due to the interactivity, our up-front cost was quite high, but through word of mouth we started getting organic growth, which saved us from spending a lot in advertising.

> That sounds low to me and attainable in Europe if you have 5+ YoE at the right places. It sounds to me like you are being lowballed. I'm getting similar offers with way less experience.

Where you at?

In the Netherlands getting anything over €70k is incredibly hard. There are very few companies offering close to that and those are often for architecture roles. Lead dev is usually €60-70k, with some €70-80k exceptions, but those usually require ~10 years focused experience.

Interestingly, over here the freelance market is much better. Those will easily get you €100-150k gross and are often quite long term. And even with €100k, combined with all the tax benefits it's very much worth it.

Tech hasn't slowed down. High-burn SV companies are slowing down and large SV companies seem to be cutting cost. Small, normal companies haven't been able to fill positions for ages though, so they might finally be able to catch some fish now. Not great for the salaries of those used to FAANG and high burn salaries, but nobody should have to worry about having a job.

> seems most of the interesting cryptocurrency activity (like million dollar liquidations) happens entirely off blockchain, on centralized exchanges (maybe?).

Correct. I commented this before, but if you compare (for Bitcoin) total daily transaction volume from Coinmarketcap (which probably isn't complete) to the actual transaction volume on the blockchain, something like 80% of transactions does not involve the blockchain. At least, that's from the top of my head from the last time I did the math. And those blockchain transactions are probably in part moving from hot to cold storage by exchanges and people moving around crypto through personal accounts.

If decentralization is the main feature of crypto, then we might as well stop using it right away, since nobody seems to actually care about it.

I tried, the results were pretty much what you'd expect: https://imgur.com/a/5F4AS2D

Another interesting thing I found out is that Chrome seems to store pretty much all of these notifications, indefinitely, on the filesystem. It's a great source for reading messages someone has received on Whatsapp/Telegram web clients and things like that.

Most hacks, these days, seem to fall into one of three categories:

1. State actors

2. For profit criminals

3. Teens for lulz and street cred

I guess the first group would probably keep it pretty quiet. The second would keep it quiet until they've abused the data as much as they want to, then sell the remainder on the dark web. The third would make a big noisy mess right away.